Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Kirk isn't protecting his crew when he goes after that SOB. "I watched you murder innocent men and women! I was ordered to end you! You think he was doing it because he wanted to avoid war with the attacker? No. "In the name of Captain Pike..." I shall beat you until my arm falls off.

He isn't when he climbs into the warp core, he only wants to save his crew. Tom Harewood isn't thinking about revenge when he blows up Section 31, he's thinking about his daughter. Khan is trying to save his people for the entire movie and only loses it when he thinks they're dead - although yes, he wanted Marcus dead it certainly wasn't the revenge-at-all-costs we saw in Wrath of Khan (where even the lives of his people were secondary to hurting Kirk)

You think Spock was trying to apprehend Khan? Nope. He was out there to kill him for killing Kirk. That's why Uhura has to stop him "He's our only chance to save Kirk!"

Revenge is on Khan's mind when he kills Marcus.

The end of the movie, Kirk ties it up nicely by saying "we shouldn't try to seek revenge, to act on our initial anger." EDIT:So anger would appear to be the connective tissue between Marcus and Khan and Kirk and Spock. Marcus is motivated by preservation due to his anger that Nero destroyed Vulcan. Khan is angry for being used, Kirk and Spock for someone dying. Acting on the initial anger (re: revenge)

So if anything, the point of the movie is about NOT giving into our urges for revenge - unlike Wrath of Khan, which was Moby Dick in space.

Three humans and a half-human acting realistically human. That hasn't happened very often since 1987. No wonder it is throwing you for a loop.

Then I guess I'm not human. I would have a problem with anyone acting the way that they did.

If you have someone hurt a member of your family, you may find out you feel very differently.

I've had a member of my family hurt by the decisions of others. And, yes, there was anger. But at the end of the day, I did not act on the anger. Because I know that there's enough anger and violence in the world, and I don't need to add to it. Because I know that I would destroy myself, adding to the misery of those around me. I watched a member of my family, because I was not the one directly hurt, in pain on several occasions because of the pain that he felt over losing a friend to someone else's decisions. This family member was confronting their mortality because the persons that were lost were their own age. "Why am I here and they are not?" "What kind of God would let this happen?" "Why do I keep losing friends?" And there was very little I could do to help my family member.

I have tasted violence in my life. I've been beaten by two guys and they were never caught. I was beat and left laying in the middle of the street. I didn't go on a rampage. But like some people who responded to 9/11 by turning off violence on television, I personally, because of the pain of that violence, have turned off violent movies. I have no use for it in my life.

I have no problem with the previous Trek universe because, with exception to perhaps David Terrell, who is out of his mind, it's a defensive weapon. Their battles aren't prolonged and it certainly doesn't have people flying out into space (sans the last 3 movies).

It's funny how different people perceive things. I was startled a few months ago when a reporter I was talking to described STAR TREK as "non-violent" show.

"Jesus Christ," I thought, "has he ever watched TOS? Kirk got into a fistfight in every other episode. Redshirts died violent deaths at a legendary rate. Doomsday machines and giant space amoebas and flocks of neural parasites devoured entire planets. Hell, Jack the Ripper even showed up!"

But I guess different people see different things--even when watching the same shows!

I think it has to do with overall tone and graphicness.

For example, Once Upon A Time is a Family Show for the most part, and at first blush, seems quite tame, but, if you think about it, it really is very dark afterall. You wouldn't think twice about letting a young child watch it, despite how dark it gets. It gets every bit as dark as The Walking Dead, but The Walking Dead you definitely wouldn't want to let a young child watch it (Without knowing their maturity level could handle it).

Also, Once Upon a Time can sink pretty far into Hopelessness, just as NuBSG does, but Once Upon A time is more fun, and not as emotionally draining as NuBSG can be. NuBSG has been described by folks who can't abide the emotional heaviness of it as "making them want to slit their wrists", and as hopeless as Once Upon a Time can be at times, I don't think anyone would ever describe it that way.

Although Trek deals with alot of heavy stuff and violence and death, it doesn't deliver them to the audience as "graphically" as NuBSG or The Walking Dead do. I've seen many people refer to Once Upon A Time as "Light and Fluffy" (IE: The Fallback description for most of SyFy Channel's shows in recent years), but, if you really watch it, OUAT is anything but Light and Fluffy (And for that matter, Warehouse 13 on SyFy Channel really isn't either, even though it's often labeled as such)

Yes, the violence is a bit bloodless and passionless, usually. And the drop-ins of non-look-alike doubles all diminishes the violence portrayed.

You're right; it's not graphic. But you also have to remember how people treated the violence as well. Kirk was always concerned for his crew when they died. No one was just collateral damage. He tried to find out what caused their death. He was worried that his decisions would lead to more deaths. You didn't see the red shirts die unless they were incinerated, we heard about them dying. Like in "Galileo Seven," "The Man Trap," etc.

Yes, the violence is a bit bloodless and passionless, usually. And the drop-ins of non-look-alike doubles all diminishes the violence portrayed.

You're right; it's not graphic. But you also have to remember how people treated the violence as well. Kirk was always concerned for his crew when they died. No one was just collateral damage. He tried to find out what caused their death. He was worried that his decisions would lead to more deaths. You didn't see the red shirts die unless they were incinerated, we heard about them dying. Like in "Galileo Seven," "The Man Trap," etc.

Yea, but, also, there were some episodes that ended with hilarity that seemed really out of place considering the death that had just occurred (Though, admittedly, if you weren't offended by how easily they moved on and forgot the deaths, the levity did end the episode on a high and keep it from getting you down)

Okay, I have to ask: What's wrong with "disturbing." Since when was Star Trek not supposed to ever be disturbing.

The Salt Vampire was disturbing. Charlie X wiping the yeoman's face off was disturbing. Joan Collins getting hit by a truck is disturbing. Rukh the murderous android was scary and disturbing. Charon destroying itself in a genocidal race war was disturbing. Christopher Pike, scarred and paralyzed and trapped in that chair, was damn disturbing . . . .

I swear, sometimes I think that if "City on the Edge of Forever" aired today, some fans would object that it wasn't "optimistic" or "Utopian" enough:

"Damnit. The real Jim Kirk would have found a way to save the timeline without sacrificing an innocent woman. Star Trek is about science and solving problems, not despair and no-win solutions. And did we really need to see some poor bum get gratuitously disintegrated? Or McCoy strung out on drugs and living in soup kitchen? Talk about a downer! Who the hell is this Harlan Ellison hack anyway?"

These whiny silly people need to watch Star Trek-TOS again and discover what the stories were, rather than talk or complain. They also need to stop watching The Next Generation and also stop confusing it with The Original Series-the movies are based on The Original Series, notThe Next Generation.

Greg Cox wrote:

It's funny how different people perceive things. I was startled a few months ago when a reporter I was talking to described STAR TREK as "non-violent" show.

"Jesus Christ," I thought, "has he ever watched TOS? Kirk got into a fistfight in every other episode. Redshirts died violent deaths at a legendary rate. Doomsday machines and giant space amoebas and flocks of neural parasites devoured entire planets. Hell, Jack the Ripper even showed up!"

Exactly what I said above. As somebody said, these people are suffering from a delayed longing for Berman & Braga era Star Trek, and now, after having rejected it, they want it back-the same way people now want back the world of Superman Returns and the other Donnerverse movies after having rejected all of that back in 2006!